Uprooted Palestinians are at the heart of the conflict in the M.E Palestinians uprooted by force of arms. Yet faced immense difficulties have survived, kept alive their history and culture, passed keys of family homes in occupied Palestine from one generation to the next.

Saturday, 28 April 2012

IDF Chief Admits Bluffing Iran

Hypocrisy

On April 25, 2012, IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz gave a rare interview to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz. As it invariably happens in recent years when Israeli leaders are interviewed, a possible war between Israel and Iran was at the center of the interview. Oddly enough, the general indirectly admitted Israel is bluffing Iran; this interview sums up to several others given recently by Israeli leaders into a very disturbing picture. Israel has not only disclosed the true message behind its public declarations, but also has heavily hinted at the result of any future negotiation.

The military option is the last chronologically, but the first in terms of its credibility. If it’s not credible it has no meaning. We are preparing for it in a credible manner. That’s my job, as a military man,” said General Gantz. This is a remarkably vague statement, especially by his inexplicable need to incessantly repeat the word “credible.” Judging his words from the point of view of a Hebrew speaker, such a statement is highly dubious. I wouldn’t buy anything from this man; he probably means Israel will not attack Iran, but wants Iran to believe it will. Afterwards he added: “[Iran] will be able to decide whether to manufacture a nuclear bomb. It hasn’t yet decided whether to go the extra mile,” and “as long as its facilities are not bomb-proof, the program is too vulnerable, in Iran’s view.” Here, he awkwardly admitted an error recently committed by Israel’s Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs, Moshe “Bogie” Ya’alon on February 2 at the Hertzliya Conference. He said then that “the West has the ability to strike [Iran],” (see Israel Bluffs Iran for more details). Unluckily, Ya’alon was bluffing and got caught; one week before Ya’alon’s belligerent remarks, the Wall Street Journal reported remarks by US defense officials according to which the Pentagon is not in possession of conventional arms strong enough to destroy all of Iran’s nuclear facilities, due to their being too deep for bunker-buster bombs. As commented upon in the past, Israel gets its GBU-28 Bunker Buster bombs from the USA. Thus, Israel cannot perform better than the USA on such an attack, especially taking into account the IDF limitations. Ya’alon bluffed.

Are these inner wars in the Israeli leadership?

This incongruence was so odd, that I made a shortlist of the main Israeli leaders opinions on the topic of a war with Iran. On October 28, 2011, I analyzed the situation in Israeli Defense Ministry Acknowledges Defeat. The article followed a comment on Israel’s incapability of defeating Iran in an interview given by Major General Amos Gilad, Head of the Israeli Defense Ministry’s Diplomatic-Security Bureau. The surprising comment was made in a “Friday’s Cathedra” event in Ashkelon. It was later cited by Yedihot Ahahronot, the largest Hebrew newspaper.

This couldn’t have been done without the silent support of the establishment. Gilad said that Netanyahu was the first to hear about a prediction of the Israeli intelligence services that Iran has decided to pursue the path of missiles and nuclear technologies development. He added that Netanyahu sees that as a “great threat,” and that this view is shared by Defense Minister Ehud Barak. The war plans of the latter were recently thwarted by the USA, at least until the November Presidential elections. Netanyahu’s support of the war is openly broadcast on an almost continuous basis by the Hebrew media: “Hold Me Back,” shouts Netanyahu. The support of a war on Iran is true also for Shimon Peres who openly supports an attack on Iran in all the relevant interviews he gave in recent months.

Yet, Nahum Barnea—a leading Yedihot Ahahronot journalist—said on that Friday that the IDF Head of Staff Beni Gantz, Mossad Director Tamir Pardo, Head of Aman (IDF Military Intelligence Corps) Aviv Kochabi, and the Head of Shin Beth Yoram Cohen—in other words, Israel’s leading generals—oppose an attack on Iran. In the past Meir Dagan—Pardo’s predecessor as Mossad Director—defined such an attack as a “foolish idea” in several interviews. In the Israeli media conventions, the former Mossad Director is the closest one gets to a formal statement by this secretive organization. All these points of view were supported in all open interviews appearing in the Hebrew media.

Posters in Jerusalem | by the Youth of the Jewish Nationalistic Front

Let me further summarize: Leading Israeli politicians support war with Iran. Leading Israeli security services personnel oppose it. This is very odd. In the Israeli (and Western) reality, one expects the opposite: generals want war, politicians want industrial silence. Is this additional incongruence a sign of Jewish wisdom, or something else?

The hint to the truth is in the deed itself. General Gantz cannot give a free interview. IDF officers must get an approval for such an event; in the case of the IDF’s chief general, the approval must be given by the Minister of Defense himself. It is unlikely that Ehud Barak would have given such an approval without asking what General Gantz was planning to say on the issue of a war with Iran. Similarly, it is unlikely that General Gantz would utter an opinion contrary to the one of his boss without getting previous approval from Barak.

In other words, we are not witnessing inner wars in the Israeli leadership, but a conscious effort to create disinformation on the plans of the State of Israel. The sharp inversion of the typical roles (warring generals, cautious politicians) is a further attempt to create confusion

To war or not to war?

The truth is that probably even Netanyahu doesn’t know for sure if Israel will attack Iran. The USA has imposed a veto on such an action until November, but after November Israel may be tempted into a nuclear attack on Iran, as it has been analyzed in Is this Israel’s last Independence Day? Netanyahu wants to keep an ambiguous position on the issue, as he does on Israel’s nuclear capabilities. Yet, inadvertently, Netanyahu disclosed a bigger secret. Israel has lost its right to be considered an honest partner to any talks.

Shimon Peres—Israel’s president—may seem active, but his political career was finished in 1981, when he and Menahem Begin competed against each other in what became the hottest campaign in Israel’s short history. Labor was trying to return to power after it lost it for the first time to the Likud Party in 1977. Following two racist events during his campaign, a comedian working for the Likud, Sefy (nickname for Yosef) Rivlin, was invited to run the Likud television campaign. He conducted a successful personal campaign against Peres. Its motto was “Ken VeLo,” namely “Yes and No” in Hebrew. Peres was presented answering “yes and no” to everything he was asked (“Do you want sugar in your coffee?” “Yes and No! Yes and No!”). The combination of Peres’ shaky reputation with the funny voice used by Rivlin and his very disturbing eyes transformed Peres into a clown forever. Peres never won an open political campaign again.

In 2012, the Israeli leadership is repeating Peres’ error on a larger scale. “Yes and No; Attack and Don’t Attack,” it is saying. “Credibility” was repeated time and again by General Gantz in yesterday’s interview. Yet, he and Israel’s leadership lost their credibility forever.

River toSeaUprooted PalestinianThe views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Israel's prison gulag is one of the world's most hellish. Palestinians held suffer horrifically. Inflicting pain and suffering is official Israeli policy. Rule of law principles are spurned.

Virtually all Palestinians held are political prisoners. Refusing food is their only resistance weapon. The Addameer Prisoner Support group estimates about 2,000 now engage in open-ended hunger strikes. Most began on April 17, Palestinian Prisoners Day.

Israel responded as expected. More pain and suffering was inflicted. Detainees are attacked and beaten. Personal possessions were confiscated. Electricity was cut off. Salt for water is prohibited.

Transfers are made harsher locations. Solitary confinement is imposed. Visits by family members and lawyers are denied. Addameer said its attorneys can't get access.

Israel hopes tough tactics will undermine the will to resist. Instead it's hardened.

Eight or more prisoners remain on extended strikes. On April 27, Thaer Halaheh and Bilal Diab reached day 59. Despite deteriorating health, an Israeli judge rejected their appeals against lawless administrative detention without charge. More on them below.

Israel calls wanting to live free belligerent and confrontational. UCL is similar to George Bush's "unlawful enemy combatant" designation.

Under America's 2009 Military Commissions Act (MCA), terminology was switched to "unprivileged enemy belligerent." Language changed, but not intent. Detainees charged lose all rights, including due process and judicial fairness.

Bush's UEC designation resurrected a defunct WW II provision. Four Geneva conventions superseded it. Under its new name, it's still enforced. Boyle once called it a:

"quasi-category universe of legal nihilism where human beings can be disappeared, detained incommunicado, denied access to attorneys and regular courts, tried in kangaroo courts, executed, tortured, assassinated and subjected to numerous other manifestations of State Terrorism."

Israel enforces the same harshness. Like America, it gets away with murder with impunity. Prolonged arbitrary detention is imposed. Hundreds face it uncharged because no evidence proves wrongdoing or intent to commit it.

Detaining someone long-term constitutes a serious international law breach. Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states:

"Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest or detention. No one shall be deprived of his liberty except on such grounds and in accordance with such procedures as are established by law."

"Anyone who is arrested shall be informed, at the time of arrest, of the reasons for his arrest and shall be promptly informed of any charges against him."

"Anyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings before a court, in order that that court may decide without delay on the lawfulness of his detention and order his release if the detention is not lawful."

Although some wiggle room permits use "in time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation," Israel consistently violates Fourth Geneva's Article 78, stating:

"If the Occupying Power considers it necessary, for imperative reasons of security, to take measures concerning protected persons, it may, at the most, subject them to assigned residence or to internment."

"Decisions regarding such assigned residence or internment shall be made according to a regular procedure to be prescribed by the Occupying Power in accordance with the provisions of the present Convention. This procedure shall include the right of appeal (decided on) with the least possible delay. (If it's upheld), it shall be subject to periodical review...."

Extended uncharged detentions should never substitute for criminal proceedings. Nor should anyone face imprisonment for political reasons. Israel flaunts international law and its own. Palestinians suffer horrifically in gulag hell.

On August 17, 2011, Israeli soldiers arrested him. Around 40 masked men in civilian clothes surrounded his home at 12:30 AM. Sound bombs and tear gas were used. Family members were treated belligerently. Bilal's brother, Issam, was violently thrown to the ground. Hands shackled behind his back, he was beaten.

Bilal was shackled, blindfolded, and mistreated. He was dragged violently to a jeep about 250 meters away. First taken to Megiddo prison, he was transferred to Salem Detention Center for interrogation.

On August 25, he was ordered detained uncharged for six months. Secret evidence was alleged. If any existed, it would be revealed. Prisoners, family members, and counsel can only speculate why he's held. Lawyers know doing so violates international law. Israeli military courts and civil ones go along.

On February 14, Bilal was ordered held another six months. Administrative detentions have no limit. Prisoners can be held indefinitely uncharged.

On February 29, he began hunger striking in protest. At the time, he was at Al-Maqab Prison. On March 31, he was transferred to Ramleh Prison hospital and isolated.

After losing consciousness several times, he was sent to Harofeh Hospital, then returned to Ramleh. Addameer lawyers were denied permission to see him.

Earlier, he spent seven years in Israeli prisons. On February 17, 2010, he was released. Israeli authorities targeted him and family members. They said over 18 raids were made since September 2000. Each time, an arrest followed.

Bilal's brother Bassam spent seven months in prison. His brother Issam was detained uncharged for 10 months, then sentenced to another 16 months. His brother Allam was held six months, and Azzam got a life sentence. On March 29, he began hunger striking with Bilal.

Bilal had no family contacts since arrested. Their appeals were denied. Now they know he may die. Israel doesn't care either way.

Thaer Halahleh

On June 26, 2010, about 50 soldiers arrested him at home past midnight. Belligerently, they broke in and seized him. Soldiers told his father he was a "threat to the public." No other reason was given.

On July 5, 2010, he was administratively detained without charge. Alleged secret evidence was again claimed. Every three months, his detention was extended. On February 29, he began hunger striking in protest.

He's also now at Ramleh Prison hospital in isolation. Addameer can't see him. Reportedly, he's in serious condition like Bilal. In vain, both men appealed for release. Their failing health was disregarded.

Eight previous times, Thaer was arrested. He spent six and half years in prison uncharged. Since beginning his hunger strike, his mother, wife and daughter saw him once. His father and five brothers were denied.

No further family visits are allowed. His father and brothers earlier were arrested. His brother Shaher's serving a 17 year sentence in Rimon Prison.

On April 26, the International Middle East Media Center reported Thaer's immune system and organs may be failing. Mandela Institute lawyer, Anwar Abu Lafy, saw him. He said a recent liver and kidney CT Scan showed "his body is unable to function and his life is in grave danger."

He can't walk or stand. He suffers sharp chest and stomach pain. He's losing vision in his right eye. He lost over 52 pounds. His blood pressure and sugar levels are dangerously low.

He also suffers from "escalating heart beats, hair loss, bleeding from his mouth and gums, and weakening muscles." He's dying but won't stop hunger striking for justice. Neither will Bilal and others.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

Despite the retreating tone of "Israel" and the United States against Iran, Russia prepares for a US-"Israeli" military strike against Tehran.According to the "World Socialist Website", "Russia has undertaken intensive preparations during the past few months for a possible military strike by "Israel" and the US on Iran."

Based on recent US reports, the website stated that "the Russian General Staff expects a war against Iran this summer, with enormous repercussions for not only the Middle East but also the Caucasus."
"Russian troops in the Caucasus have been technically upgraded, and a missile division situated on the Caspian Sea has been placed in readiness," the report added, noting that " the missile cruisers of the Caspian flotilla are now anchored off the coast of Dagestan."

It also unveiled that "the only Russian military base in the South Caucasus, located in Armenia, is also on alert for military intervention."

Last autumn, Russia sent its aircraft carrier Kuznetsov to the Syrian port Tartous following the escalation of the conflict in Syria.

Moreover, the report highlighted that "experts believe that Russia would support Tehran in the event of war, at least on a military-technical level."

In a commentary in April, General Leonid Ivashov, president of the Academy of Geopolitical Science, wrote that "a war against Iran would be a war against Russia" and he called for a "political-diplomatic alliance" with China and India.

"Operations were being undertaken throughout the Middle East in order to destabilize the region and proceed against China, Russia and Europe. The war against Iran," Ivashov wrote, would "end up at our borders, destabilize the situation in the North Caucasus and weaken our position in the Caspian region."

The Kremlin fears above all that Azerbaijan could participate in a military alliance alongside "Israel" and the United States against Iran. Azerbaijan borders Iran, Russia, Armenia and the Caspian Sea, and since the mid-1990s has been an important military and economic ally of the US in the South Caucasus, housing several American military bases.

Source: World Socialist Websits, Edited by moqawama.org

Lavrov: Sanctions on Iran Banks Breach IMF Charter

US Fears Iranian Cyber Threat

River toSeaUprooted PalestinianThe views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

After the missiles, "Israel" is afraid of Hizbullah's Drones.
According to "Israeli" "Ynet", Hizbullah is to be bolstering UAV unit in order to attack "Israel" in case it strikes Iran."Hizbullah has been allocating increased resources towards bolstering its drone unit," the paper claimed, noting that the "group reportedly plans to use its unmanned aerial vehicle to attack "Israel" in case it mounts a military strike against Iran's nuclear facilities."

It further mentioned that "Hizbullah is equipped with Ababil drones, which are manufactured and provided by Iran."

The "Israeli" daily quoted "Israeli" military establishment officials who expressed concern that the Lebanese resistance would be able to send multiple drones into Occupied Palestine's airspace have them crash into targets in northern "Israel".

"Hizbullah is making a specific effort to acquire such (weapons) as part of its offensive lineup against "Israel"," a security source told "Ynet".

The "Israeli" source also mentioned that "as far as they are concerned, it's a sure thing: The Ababil is a relatively cheap weapon, which the Iranians give them for free, anyway."

"It takes a short time to master and its loss doesn't involve sacrificing human lives," the "Israeli" officials warned, noting that "another advantage for them is that it's a very small aircraft that's hard to detect and shoot down."

"Israeli" military said that "the Air Force's anti-missile lineup has been adapting its "defensive" doctrines to the increasing threat."Source: Ynet, Edited by moqawama.org

River toSeaUprooted PalestinianThe views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

JERUSALEM — Israeli officials have become increasingly outspoken in their belief that Syria’s President Bashar Assad should relinquish power after a 13-month uprising that has killed thousands of his citizens — a surprising turnaround that risks backfiring and potentially strengthening the embattled Syrian leader.

......

Many officials, including the hawkish Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, say that Assad’s tough crackdown on his own people has robbed him of any legitimacy to remain in power.

Others believe Assad’s departure would weaken what the Israelis call Iran’s “axis of evil” in the region — the anti-Israel alliance of Iran, Syria, Lebanon’s Hezbollah guerrilla group and Hamas militants in the Gaza Strip. Fears that Assad might attack Israel to divert attention from his domestic troubles have also subsided. Some even believe he will be replaced by a moderate, Western-leaning government.

In perhaps the toughest comments to date, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said last week that Assad’s ouster would be “very positive” for Israel.

“The toppling down of Assad will be a major blow to the radical axis,” he said in a CNN interview. “It will weaken dramatically Iran.”

Although Israeli officials now believe Assad’s days are numbered, they say they are keeping their distance from the key players in Syria. They do not want to be seen as intervening in Syrian affairs. For this reason, officials say, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been extremely careful with his public statements, condemning the bloodshed but saying nothing about the future of Syria.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said Israel would welcome international action against Assad, just as international action in Libya helped oust the late Moammar Gadhafi. But he said Israel is not openly pressuring the West to take action.

“We know our place. It’s not for us to give advice,” he said. “We’re not doing anything to make him go. We’re not getting involved or even thinking of any interference.”

Palmor said Israel has no idea who might replace Assad. But Israeli security officials believe that if Assad goes, there is a good chance that a moderate, Sunni, Western-leaning government will take his place.

Last month, Barack Obama received a thunderous applause from Israel-Firsters at Israel Lobby (AIPAC) meeting for repeating the Israeli Hasbara (propaganda) mouthpiece, MEMRI’s fiction, theWipe Israel off the map hoax. However, he did disappoint his paranoid dual citizens by saying that his administration rather prefer diplomacy in dealing with Iranian leaders. However, Obama did assure them that he will never allow Tehran to achieve a ‘nuclear capability’ (by maintaining Israel’s nuclear supramacy in the region).

“Let’s begin with a basic truth that you all understand: no Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that threatens to “wipe Israel off the map“,”said Obama in his speech.

Obama’s repeated provocative and propagandistic lies about the Islamic Republic confirm that the man is not sincere in the success of diplomatic engagement with Iran especially when Iran is holding open dialogue with P5+1 in Istanbul and Baghdad.

US Colonel (Rt.) Douglas McGregor PhD, says that Barack Obama’s anti-Iran rhetoric are to maintain Jewish support for his re-election. Personally, Obama is least interested in starting a war with Iran on behalf of Israel.

In a recentinterview with Russian Television (RT), Col. Douglas MacGregorsaid:”President Obama is not remotely interested in waging war against Iran, so let’s be clear about that. No one at the top of the United States military establishment is interested in waging war against Iran, and the intelligence community has made it abundantly clear that Iran is nowhere near the development of a nuclear warhead or the capacity to deliver one. President Obama’s preeminent concern is to get reelected. And that’s a very dangerous proposition right now for him, depending upon what the Israelis do”.

MacGregor added: “We talk about what they will do if they are attacked, but look at the rest of the world. What will the rest of the world do if Israel attacks Iran? Remember, this is an unprovoked assault. The Israelis can claim otherwise, and insist otherwise, and paint this picture of enormous danger represented to Israel, but the truth is, no one buys that. My view has always been that if you do this, if Israel does this, then Iran will definitely have nuclear weapons. They won’t have to build them, they’ll get them. People will provide them. They will have more help than they know what to do with. And Iran will grow more hostile, and more bitter, and more angry and more dangerous than it has ever been”.
Last month, Gen. Martin Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, all said that they have no proof that Tehran is pursuing a nuclear bomb. Gen. Dempsey even called the Iranian leaders “rational people”.
Last week, another anti-Semite reared his head. Gen. Benny Grantz, chief of the Israel Occupation Force (IOF), who told Israeli daily Ha’aretz that he believes Iran is a “rational actor” and will not choose to develop nuclear weapons.

“Once again, we see that the capital of neoconservative hawkishness is not Jerusalem or Tel Aviv but Washington and New York. AIPAC, Commentary, the American Jewish Committee, Newt Gingrich, and the AIPAC-rented Members of Congress all want war with Iran. But none of them will have to fight it (they will, however, enjoy watching it on CNN or Fox News). But Israelis who themselves must fight, or, if not them, their kids, are not so gung-ho. Hey, maybe General Grantz, needs lessons in toughness from Jeff Goldberg or Jennifer Rubin. The real question is: can the lobby get Grantz fired? I mean, can he really say things like this and get away with it?,” posted MJ Rosenberg on April 25, 2012.

River toSeaUprooted PalestinianThe views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

"... Nominally Mustafa's rebels fight for the Free Syrian Army (FSA), but the FSA, lacking international recognition or direct state funding, is a often just a convenient label for a host of local armed groups competing fiercely for scarce financing.So fiercely, they sometimes turn their guns on each other.

"Everyone needs weapons. There is tension. There is anger and yes, sometimes there is fighting if rebels in one town seem to have an unfair share of weapons," said Mustafa, who comes from Syria's northwestern province of Idlib, which borders Turkey and has been a hotbed of resistance to Assad.

Such mistrust is compounded by the competing agendas of outside parties who are further fragmenting the rebel movement.Finding a donor usually means using personal connections, rebels say. They get relatives or expatriate friends to put them in touch with businessmen or Syrian groups abroad.

But once fighters go to private donors for weapons, they have to sanegotiate, and the price may be ideological.

Many say Islamist groups, from hard-line Salafists to the exiled Muslim Brotherhood, bankroll many battalions that share their religious outlook. The Brotherhood has representatives in Antakya ready to meet interested rebels, fighters say.Leftist politicians and other opponents of Islamists are trying to counter that influence by funding rival armed bands.

"These groups are all making their own militias, like they are some kind of warlords. This is dividing people," said one activist who asked not to be named. "They aren't thinking about military strategies, they are thinking about politics."...

Saudi Arabia and Qatar, regional rivals of Assad's main ally Iran, are likely to increase calls for the insurgents to be armed.

Western powers wary of military entanglement in another Middle Eastern hotspot have so far said this would not be helpful, while proposing non-lethal aid to the opposition.

Even if that were to change, it is not clear how military supplies could be directed to competing insurgents hopelessly outgunned by Assad's artillery and tanks, many of whom don't even agree on a military strategy.

Several rebel groups have formally broken with the FSA to form outfits such as the Syrian Liberation Army, the Patriotic Army and The Alternative Movement, whose real identity and clout are hard to assess,

The FSA has pledged to honor the shaky U.N.-backed truce that took effect on April 16 if the army reciprocates. But the Syrian Liberation Army says it will keep fighting.

"We don't accept the ceasefire. We have slowed down a bit, only because we don't have enough weapons," its spokesman, Haitham Qudeimati, told Reuters.....

A 60-year-old rebel commander called Abu Shaham, from the central city of Hama, accused the Brotherhood of hanging back from the battlefront to overpower other rebel groups later.

"The Brotherhood is pumping money into the rebel units yet their men don't fight as much as us. They are almost always the first to retreat. Why? ...they are not thinking about this phase in the battle. They care about what comes next. They want to save themselves for the struggle after Assad falls, to come out the strongest."...

Some rebels worry Islamist radicals could stoke tensions between majority Sunni Muslims, who have driven the revolt, and minority Alawites, Shi'ites and Christians, who are wary of it.

"There are a lot of jihadists who want to come from abroad, this is real," said one insurgent, who asked not to be named. "Then we will no longer be talking about Syria's fight for freedom, we'll be talking about a sectarian war."..."

"Why Laura??" I ask"More than 60 years of protests and of petitions have not changed anything on the ground for the Palestinian people."She claimed "As a Muslim I convinced that the situation in the Middle East will change only when the Muslims and particularly the Arabs decide they want to take action. When the Arabs and Muslims reach this point then as we have seen with the Arab Spring even the most vile and oppressive leaders and regimes can be toppled."she added.

Laura is talking about Muslims and particularly Arabs, most likely she meant Arab Muslims, and unless she changed her mind she is taking about Arab Muslim brother, because, her Shaikh told her "Success will never come from deviant sect like the Shia" (click the link and read my coment on that), In other words success will never come from Alawis in Syria, Shia in Iran and Lebanon, the Axis if resistance.

For Laura, like all Islamists, "Islam is the only solution"

"When the Arabs and Muslims reach this point then as we have seen with the Arab Spring even the most vile and oppressive leaders and regimes can be toppled."she claimed.

Which regimes Laura?

Most likely, Laura is talking about Egypt and Tunis, where her brothers hijacked the half-revolution, and reached a conclusion: to govern we should respect the international agreements (Camp david), and Tunis constitution, where Israel is not an enemy. She meant also her Nato brothers in Libya, caught yesterday off Lebanese shores Smuggling Weapons to Syria, the Muslim land occupied by deviant sect.

Finally I agree with Laura, Islam is is the only solution, but in a country like Iran, in a country, like Lebanon and Syria, even in Egypt, Islam (I mean Colorblind islamist's ISLAM) is the problem. Resistance, starting with protest outside the Israeli embassy or Downing Street, all forms of popular resistance ending with armed resistance is the only solution. Zoom out of your dark veil. Its not black or white.

We should be standing up as Muslims (HUMANS), and believe that we can make a difference if we organise and unite.

Today there is a protest in London in support of the Palestinian Hunger Strikers, but I won’t be there. Not because I not totally against administrative detention and against the occupation, clearly administrative detention and occupation are morally wrong.

But I have come to the conclusion that such actions as protesting outside the Israeli embassy or Downing Street have zero value, of course it’s always nice to see my friends and fellow activists but I keep asking myself – what does this really achieve? I go home after such protest happy to have seen my friends but thinking so what really happened there? We waved a few banners and shouted a few chants but in reality nothing – absolutely nothing changed. More than 60 years of protests and of petitions have not changed anything on the ground for the Palestinian people.

As a Muslim I convinced that the situation in the Middle East will change only when the Muslims and particularly the Arabs decide they want to take action. When the Arabs and Muslims reach this point then as we have seen with the Arab Spring even the most vile and oppressive leaders and regimes can be toppled.

Also as a Muslim I feel that such organisations as the Palestine Solidarity Campaign have nothing to offer at all. This week for one example Sarah Colborne unfriended me on Facebook after she posted an article about B.B.C. bias – I asked her on the comments why she declines to mention the reason for this bias i.e. Jewish lobby groups such as B.I.C.O.M. however, apparently the words Jew or Jewish are totally verboten in the P.S.C. since it’s take over by Jewish lobby groups – read about that here – here – here and here.

So if Jews proudly identify as Jews and form Jew only groups such as “Jews for Justice for Palestine” or “JBig” or have Jews only ships sailing to Gaza then why am I not allowed to use the term Jewish lobby group? Surely they are exactly that?

The fact that Palestinians do not find themselves welcome in the P.S.C. has been written about extensively by Palestinians themselves and I would add to that the fact that P.S.C. do not really offer anything for Muslims either. We had better look into the teachings of Islam for a solution to injustice than expecting any solution from non Muslims. I wrote a few days ago and indeed many times how Western justice does not apply to Muslims read it here. We cannot forget that British politicians got the Palestinians into this mess and have continously failed to offer the Palestinian people any justice ever since, so why should anyone waste their time outside Downing Street? Perhaps it gives some people a feeling of having done something, however the results of such actions speak for themselves.

Definitely it is time that Palestinians and Muslims in the U.K. lost their fear of retribution from the Israeli controlled British Government and stopped hiding behind left wing organisations that claim to be against apartheid but appear to follow a very similar agenda to the Zionists by oppressing free speech. Such organisations as P.S.C. are part of the system of the oppressors and operate with the same methodology. We should be standing up as Muslims and believe that we can make a difference if we organise and unite.

If any Muslim really believes that the solution is going to come from a political or legal resolution then they must have had their heads buried in the sand to events of the last 60+ years. There is no solution coming from Cameron or Obama just as there was no solution from all the previous Prime Ministers or Presidents and with 80% of the Conservative M.P.s being members of Conservative Friends of Israel we should not be surprised.

River toSeaUprooted PalestinianThe views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Why is Tawakkul Karman Quiet? Was She Bought Off?? Thus asked a bought off Pandit, I used to call him TFFUUUU.
﻿

Obama approved the use of “signature” strikes this month and that the killing of an al-Qaeda operative near the border of Yemen’s Marib province this week was among the first attacks carried out under the new authority.

﻿

Increased airstrikes will raise number of civilian casualties, undermine US law, and further destabilize Yemen, say critics

The CIA and US military may target suspected al-Qaida militants in Yemen with drones even when suspects' identities are not known, report the Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post citing "unnamed" US government officials. The policy shift gives permission to the CIA and the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) to fire on targets based solely on the targets' intelligence "signatures" -- patterns of behavior detected through intercepts, human sources and aerial surveillance that indicate the presence of "key operative" or a "threatening" act.

﻿﻿

Obama approved the use of “signature” strikes this month and that the killing of an al-Qaida operative near the border of Yemen’s Marib province this week was among the first attacks carried out under the new authority, officials told the Post. The new lethal authority is given even when identity of those in harm's way is not known, the reports indicate.

The Wall Street Journal quotes a US official as saying "Every Yemeni is armed, so how can they differentiate between suspected militants and armed Yemenis?"

After reports of the new strategy in Yemen -- which came in the form of a request from CIA Director David Petraeus -- law professor Bruce Ackerman, in a Washington Postop-ed, urged the president to reject it, arguing that even George W. Bush never received authorization to carry out such expansive war powers. "The president should not try to sleep-walk the United States into a permanent state of war by pretending that Congress has given him authority that Bush clearly failed to obtain at the height of the panic after Sept. 11."

The decision to give the CIA and the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) greater leeway is almost certain to escalate a drone campaign that has accelerated significantly this year, with at least nine strikes in under four months. The number is about equal to the sum of airstrikes all last year.

The expanded authority will allow the CIA and JSOC to fire on targets based solely on their intelligence “signatures” — patterns of behavior that are detected through signals intercepts, human sources and aerial surveillance, and that indicate the presence of an important operative or a plot against U.S. interests.

Until now, the administration had allowed strikes only against known terrorist leaders who appear on secret CIA and JSOC target lists and whose location can be confirmed.
Moving beyond those rules of engagement raises substantial risks for the Obama administration, which has sought to avoid being drawn into a fight between insurgents and Yemen’s central government.

Congressional officials have expressed concern that using signature strikes would raise the likelihood of killing militants who are not involved in plots against the United States, angering Yemeni tribes and potentially creating a new crop of al-Qaeda recruits.

Critics have also challenged the legal grounds for expanding the drone campaign in Yemen. In an opinion piece published in The Washington Post on Sunday, Bruce Ackerman, a law professor at Yale University, argued that war measures adopted in the aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were not aimed at al-Qaeda’s Yemeni affiliate and don’t provide Obama “with authority to respond to these threats without seeking further congressional consent.”

The risk of attacks from Yemen may be real. But the 2001 resolution doesn’t provide the president with authority to respond to these threats without seeking further congressional consent.

"If the administration wishes to escalate the fight against terrorists in Yemen, it should return to Congress for express approval."

Congress hasn’t reversed itself in the years since it authorized the use of military force. While lawmakers recently elaborated on the president’s powers over captive terrorists in the military appropriations act of 2012, that legislation declared that “[n]othing in this section is intended to. . . expand the authority of the President or the scope of the Authorization for Use of Military Force [of September 2001].” If the administration wishes to escalate the fight against terrorists in Yemen, it should return to Congress for express approval.

Obama has an option. He has avoided Bush-era claims that he has the unilateral power as commander in chief to open up new fronts in an endless war against terrorism, independently of Congress. As a constitutional lawyer, he recognizes the weakness of such claims. As a politician he recognizes that they would profoundly alienate his base just when he needs it.

Some congressional officials have expressed concern over the use of such signature strikes, stating that they raise the likelihood of killing fighters who may not be involved in plots either to do with attacks against the US, or affiliated with al-Qaeda, potentially angering the local population and pushing them to join in the struggle against the US.Yemeni officials rejected on Wednesday a request from the CIA and US military to expand the signature strikes to the target of groups who they deem to be fighters.

The Wall Street Journal quotes a US official as saying "Every Yemeni is armed, so how can they differentiate between suspected militants and armed Yemenis?"

The signature strikes have to be approved by Yemen before they are conducted, according to Yemeni and US officials.

In a related development, Yemeni officials rejected on Wednesday a request from the CIA and US military to expand the signature strikes to the target of groups who they deem to be fighters.

US officials say the CIA and US military had asked the White House for permission to target larger groups if intelligence points to al-Qaeda-related activity, as the CIA does in Pakistan's tribal regions.
All officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive strategic matters.

River toSeaUprooted PalestinianThe views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!